Every reader has their own interpretation of a text and the author's intent. Personally, looking back on Lolita I can say I'm a little uncomfortable with the level of empathy and identification the writer shows with Humbert Humbert, but I know the intention is to discomfit the reader by making them identify with a horrible character, so...
> I know the intention is to discomfit the reader by making them identify with a horrible character, so...
That's not the intent of the author. Nabokov has absolutely no moral or social points to make.
I didn't realize this until I read Eugene Onegin, which I take as the genesis of Nabokov's general perspective. Onegin is funny and ironic while still being emotionally affecting. Nabokov is much more in the "art for art's sake" camp than most people today are comfortable with.
Can you recommend a good english translation? I've always wanted to read that poem.
But, you're citing a book by Pushkin (or the anti-hero within?) as illustrative of Nabokov's worldview? While he affected amused disdain I think Nabokov did care about the world. Doesn't Onegin too?
I think it's hard to square writing a book about a manipulative child abuser with being utterly disinterested in moral or social issues, because the book probes deeply into both (even if it is a little fantastical and hyper-real). I agree Nabokov has a very dry, aristocratic and distant style, but he wouldn't write about such things if he didn't want to provoke debate. Art has meaning and his has a lot more depth than surface. His position is of course very ambiguous but there is a lot of empathy for Humbert in Lolita, which is partly why it is so entrancing and discomfiting.
I read James Falen's translation, which I thought was great. I don't speak Russian though so who knows.
> But, you're citing a book by Pushkin (or the anti-hero within?) as illustrative of Nabokov's worldview? While he affected amused disdain I think Nabokov did care about the world. Doesn't Onegin too?
That's my view, yeah. The figure here is the disaffected noble (or intellectual) who disdains society, creates his own values, and eventually tragically fails partly because he can't totally leave society behind. I think Nabokov loves those characters. I don't think he's criticizing them.
I am of course not saying you have to agree with Nabokov.
That's my view, yeah. The figure here is the disaffected noble (or intellectual) who disdains society, creates his own values, and eventually tragically fails partly because he can't totally leave society behind. I think Nabokov loves those characters. I don't think he's criticizing them.
Yes I agree he probably would have loved a character like that, though I think part of the attraction is the recognition of their inevitable tragic end (with the implicit recognition that they are mistaken about the world).
Humbert of course is not in that mould (or not entirely), and I'm not saying Nabokov would be so crass as to write himself into Humbert, but he shows a lot of sly sympathy for him in Lolita, and his other books also show a preoccupation with transgressive sexuality in children (Ada), it's a weird obsession.
Art communicates and empathy and sympathy are related.
What a particular work communicates is hard to pin down, and of course open to interpretation which changes over time (for example views of Alice in Wonderland have shifted due to revelations about the character of the author and his relation with his Alice), but it's certainly not possible to discuss whether a book sympathises with the central character if you don't engage with what the book says and instead talk in generalities.
Every reader has their own interpretation of a text and the author's intent. Personally, looking back on Lolita I can say I'm a little uncomfortable with the level of empathy and identification the writer shows with Humbert Humbert, but I know the intention is to discomfit the reader by making them identify with a horrible character, so...